July 2, 2004
THE DIFFERENCE BEING THE GOP HAS STANDARDS:
Kerry's divorce papers: A ticking time bomb (Kevin McCullough, July 2, 2004, WorldNetDaily.com)
The argument that the press made in the Jack Ryan case was that all divorce proceedings are public. A public act, paid for by public fees and taxes, and the proceedings take place in the public's courthouse. The "public's right to know" became the all-encompassing battle cry for the Chicago Tribune. Now the tables are being turned against John Kerry, and he has given his opponents even more reason to pursue the records after, according to the Boston Globe, he flatly rejected making the documents public this week.What are we likely to find in the John Kerry records? There are only a handful of people who know for sure. But adding up what we know about the circumstances surrounding the John Kerry/Julia Thorne divorce, it is obvious to many that it impacted her a great deal more than it did him. This becomes a matter for the voters when you realize that on his website John Kerry claims "a very active Catholic faith."
Joseph Curl wrote for the Washington Times back in April of this year:
"The couple had two daughters, Alexandra in 1973 and Vanessa in 1976, but all was not bliss in the Kerry mansions. They separated in 1982, with Thorne in the depths of a severe depression and on the brink of suicide, which she blamed on her husband's cold and distant nature, his long absences and his fierce ambition (which she was bankrolling). The separation came as Kerry was mulling a bid to run for the Senate seat vacated by Paul Tsongas in 1984; Thorne said she still associates politics 'only with anger, fear and loneliness.' In 1988, the final divorce went through. ... She later called her relationship with Kerry a 'suffocating marriage.'"
What kind of man leaves his wife, but especially when she is in the midst of suicidal depression? In addition, there seemed to be a hotly contested issue when Kerry later wished to marry Teresa Heinz over whether or not he should be granted an annulment.
He pushed ahead for the annulment even though it technically threw his daughters into the bizarre state of illegitimacy. Having recovered from her depression by that point, some 18 years later Thorne fired back with hotly worded letters that she also copied to the Boston Globe. In 1997, Kerry even publicly joked about the issue of annulment on a radio talk show saying that 75 percent of all annulments in the world take place in the U.S., but he guessed, "That number would drop to 50 percent if you take out all of the Massachusetts politicians."
No wonder the Senator is so secretive about the files. As we said of the Ryan case, this probably wouldn't hurt him all that much with voters--the question is how his party would react. In the anti-female GOP treating your wife disrespectfully was disqualifying. Hard to believe the same standard will be applied to Ted Kennedy's disciple, no? Posted by Orrin Judd at July 2, 2004 3:51 PM
So did he get his annulment?
Posted by: Bartman at July 2, 2004 4:13 PMYes, he successfully bastardized his children and punched a new meal ticket.
Posted by: Rick Ballard at July 2, 2004 4:17 PMActually, the divorce records are public except for the financial settlement. It was a no-fault divorce so there were no allegations made by Ms. Thorne. The annulment records are kept secret by the Church, so Kerry or Thorne would have to release them. Really, unless Thorne wants to go public with anti-Kerry charges, there's no story.
Posted by: pj at July 2, 2004 5:43 PMDo we remember how much hay the Democrats made about Newt Gingrich, who divorced his first wife while she was in the hospital, recovering from cancer?
With respect to Kerry's annulment, the 'issue', such as it is, will be how much he paid for it, and how long he waited for it to be granted.
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 2, 2004 6:19 PMjim - how much he paid for the annulment - probably about $3,000, same as everybody else - these payments just cover administrative costs. If you're asking, did he get special treatment, he may well have - but we'll never see evidence of it unless his ex-wife gives it to us.
Posted by: pj at July 2, 2004 7:39 PMPJ - Jeri Ryan wanted the divorce records to stay sealed as well but the courts overruled her in the interest of "public knowledge". I don't think the GOP should stoop to the Dem's level but not disclosing the records may hurt Kerry a little.
Posted by: AWW at July 2, 2004 8:05 PM"With respect to Kerry's annulment, the 'issue', such as it is, will be how much he paid for it" -
Np, Sir! The issue is how much alimony the ex had to pay John Kerry before he could marry a billionairess.
What a gigolo!!!!
Posted by: Oswald Booth Czolgosz at July 2, 2004 9:10 PMAWW - Yes, we shouldn't stoop to the level of a Gray Davis-appointed California lefty judge. And it's easy not to stoop in this case, because stooping wouldn't accomplish anything for us. As far as concealing divorce/annulment/tax/medical records hurting Kerry, I doubt it. The press won't make it an issue, only partisan Republicans will notice and care.
Posted by: pj at July 2, 2004 10:04 PMThe press will make issue of how "only partisan Republicans will notice and care" and use it as another example of how all conservatives and Republican are a bunch of prudes who only want to run other people's private lives. (No mention that the Dems want to run everything else about a person's life.) So even a victory here won't be, and the matter should be dropped. Anyone who pursues this should be looked on with suspicion as someone gathering material to do a "Clinton Chroncles" sequel starring Kerry.
The family finances of a billionaire running against "the rich" and Halliburton and such, on the other hand, should be fair game.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 3, 2004 1:39 PMKerry's divorce file should be open, just as the court was right to open Ryan's divorce file.
1. Court papers should be open to the public to see what the law is, how it is applied and to supervise the courts.
2. The government should not be allowed to decide what is proper grounds for a voter to consider.
3. In every way we can, we should emphasize the rule that if you screw up with your family, you will suffer for the rest of your life.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 3, 2004 6:04 PM